New Rules - Tech, Policing, and Scrutineers

[nateh]

That's kind of ironic! According to the results of our recent pole, there are more members that are satisfied with our current rules than those that are unsatisfied..!

We must be reading different survey results, Will.

Asked "Which statement best reflects your satisfaction with the COM car classing rules?"
"I am very / mostly satisfied with the classification rules" = 41.5%
"I am very / somewhat dissatisfied with the classification rules" = 40.9%
To call this a win for the current rules seems to stretch the statistics a bit.

Asked "A proposal has been presented to replace the COM car classing rules for 2013. Which statement best reflects your perspective?"
"I support adopting the rules proposal" -55.3%
"I do not support adopting the rules proposal" - 4.4%

[nateh]

What tools will be available?

Scales and dynos.

[nateh]

According to a conversation I had with Nick yesterday and today, the lap-record tech inspection and the protest inspection for 'Super' cars was basically a math check of the form provided by the competitor. Complete honor system unless something smells funny. Are a sharpened set of olfactory senses part of the new tool kit?

This is pretty far from my understanding of the new rules.

[nateh]

What I'm hearing about scrutinizing under the proposed new rule set amounts to a grading of the competitor's arithmetic.

This is incorrect. As a scrutineer in the new system, I would expect to check as much as possible of what's on the list by looking at the car. (One great thing about the new system is that there actually *is* a list.) If sufficient doubt exists, we can use the scales and the dyno.

[nateh]

My thought is that everyone will have very accurate answers to the first two questions, concerning cylinder count and displacement, and will tell the truth (integrity).

Certainly - but the competitive information contained in these questions is extremely crude. (Also, a displacement-based or cylinder count based structure contains excessive biases toward 1) newer cars and 2) more money.)

I also believe that the majority will not know the answer to the weight or power question,

I don't agree. And as time goes on, the fraction who know the answers will continue to rise. The cost of getting this data is already small compared to that of actually modifying your car - and the cost is going down.

I'm pretty sure that I want:
1. A class to run in and be competitive in my car, the way I'd like to built it, such as they exist today.

This is unachievable and undesirable. That's what Ferrari would have wanted for the 1962 season.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting your statement, and what you mean is that you want to maximize the number of cars that can be in the range of competitive with minimal changes. If that's what you mean, then you should be supporting the new system.

2. A class where I know throughout my build that I will be legal in my class without any surprises due to variances in measuring tools (dynos) or a scrutineer's best guess.
3. A class where I can protest a competitor and know that their car will actually be inspected and determined whether or not it is modified (or not) within the rules of the class.
4. A class where my competitors or I will be held accountable during a class record technical inspection.

I think the new system is better than the old in most respects regarding these issues.

[n1gzd]

I agree with Nate. Three of my cars are much more competitive with the new system.
Rebecca

[nateh]

In the discussion of the rules for 2013, everyone has a car or two that will be affected, and it would be unrealistic to assume that our views are unaffected by what will happen to our own cars under the new system. "Where we stand depends on where we sit."

So, I am going to engage in full disclosure. Perhaps if others follow suit, we will have a better informed discussion.

I am owner or part owner for 3 cars that can and have run with COMSCC.

1) 1992 Miata, stock 1.6 (SSC under current rules, T40 under new proposal)
This car, with a valve job and decent tire choices, could conceivably be competitive in SSC – but SSC is rather lonely these days. Or, it could conceivably be competitive in T40, depending on how many other cars jump in.

2) 1995 Spec Miata (SPC under current rules, T50 under new proposal)
There is no way for this car to be competitive under the current rules (either SPC or ST4), without radical and expensive modifications that would make it ineligible for the other racing we do with it. On the other hand, it might be decent as is in T50. I’d love to find out.

3) 1985 Frankenspec (former Spec Renault; PC under current rules, SC under new proposal, assuming it is modified as projected)
This car, with a weight/power ratio of about 15, is absolutely hopeless against reasonable PC competition. I won a PC championship with it because nobody else went to all the events. Also FP and PB championships, again by perseverance and default rather than speed.

The car has a heavy frame and Renault Alliance brakes, axles, and uprights. The engine compartment is tiny. To make it competitive in PC or PB would require at least some rather dramatic and expensive engine work, and probably also a wholesale replacement of brakes and suspension, which would otherwise fail constantly due to the power delivered. All this would be a terrible investment in a car that is poorly suited for these kinds of modifications, even if I could afford it.

On the other hand, if SC has a specific weight to power target of 12 or 12.5, then we can conceivably modify the present VW engine for a modest increase in horsepower, at a moderate cost. Depending on the sophistication of the competition that develops in SC, we might have a hope of being competitive.

So, 2 of my 3 cars would benefit strongly from the new rules.

[Brendan]

Been staying out of this mostly, but my recommendation would be to buy scales, and require a dyno printout from anyone in the Super Classes, and require that it be from one model of dyno run in a specified mode with specified correction factors, and require that fuel not change from dyno to track - pick your fuel and stick with it. Dyno printout would also be required for anyone in the touring classes who chooses the power to weight option instead of the engine modifications points as given. Yes there's an honor factor, but that's about the best we'll do.

My disclosure: I for one am in SPC currently with a very competitive car even though my driving could use work. I at first voted in favor of the rule changes, but in retrospect I'm worried I'm losing part of what I like about COM. I will have to run in T100 or go to the super classes. It will probably be Super C at 12.0 or 12.5 range because I don't feel like running against stock Z06's etc - what fun is that in a NA 4-cylinder. If there's no Super C then it would probably be "Screw it, and find someone else to run with". That's just me.

[eastcoastbumps]

Brendan, what if you were in the same class as me, Paddy, Gordon, and Mick? Would you still say "Screw it." and find somewhere else to run if there was a Corvette on street tires in the class, or an STi on RA1's?

[Brendan]

It's absolutely about the people, cars and the competition, so it depends on who's running in whatever class I would end up in. I like having better drivers in somewhat similar cars to chase because I've seen myself improve because of it. Because of the choices I made with my car, for me personally to run in T90 I'd need to run street tires, add 100 (or more) lbs of ballast, and start swapping out parts off my car. I happen to have some modifications on my car that by the letter of the Touring rules add points, but aren't giving me personally any advantage yet (Not that they wouldn't to someone who utilized them fully). That makes it easier to say my realistic class is T100 (Still on RA-1's) or Super C and just worry about a power to weight.

If there's going to be a good crowd of people in T100 or a Super C - then sure it changes my mind. But I don't know that right now.

And again, that's just me based on what I decided to do with the M3... I completely understand why the proposed rules work out better for a lot of people.

(EDIT: Sorry, somewhat off topic for this thread, but figured I'd add it... Pete, will be in touch off line, on the road now...)

[Jimmy Pet]

I like the Touring package, I don't like the Super Class structure.

I'll be running Super Class, I would change my vote.

FWIW I see this as two separate classes. People running Touring should vote on that part of the rules, people running Super Class should have a say on how that is structured. I don't think either class really cares how the other sets their rule structure. I don't see the need for the two classes to be on the same program.

This^^^

I think if you subdivided the Prepared responders out of the equation,,, I'd be willing to bet more Prepared people are satisfied with the current rules than not.
I have complete disdain for HP / Weight rule sets so I will not bore you with that. Suffice to say, I hate it. Impossible to prove or police unless you are bringing a set of scales and a dyno to the track. The "mod calculators" are so, so, so subjective. Who decides what mod equals what penalty or points tally.
Not to mention the base classing. 100% subjective. Impossible to get right.

All I have ever wanted to do is compete against other similar small displacement normally aspirated cars. Its the true measure to me of the competition.
I dont really want to compare or run against V8s, I6s or turbo rally cars,,, but because my checklist would line up that way,,, thats likely what I would be running against.
That,,, I could care less about. Its no measure. Oh well the Vette was on street tires and the Turbo STI/Evo had an interior,,, whatever. Some spreadsheet said we were good competition.
Dont care. They couldnt be more different. Profile is so different i wouldn't care if I beat one or it beat me.
I DO enjoy the crap out of competing against Fred (or any E30 M3s), any 944s, Baby Grands, Integras, etc, etc,,, cars with 4 cylinders.

Currently COM currently gives me and others like me the chance to fight knives with knives. Bring the best knife you have and have at it.
Prepared is the ultimate tinkerer class in the Northeast for Time Trialing. Its the TT variant of SCCA's SPU and SPO club racing classes. Production run what ya brung displacement based classes (which is the other place I spend my track dollars)...
I'll quickly lose interest in the TT day if the rules go HP / Weight, or any of the proposed "calculate your mods" type classing for my car.

I do think Prepared may need one more class, Prepared FI. Throw all the forced induction cars into that class. Once a car gets to the Prepared level, its too hard to put a number on what kind of power its putting down, especially theses days. The old 1.5 displacement modifier that has been used for decades for FI cars no longer works.
Those cars can make just crazy HP with modern waste gates and engine mgt.
Just make a PFI class and let those guys all go at it.

Throw all the spreadsheets and calculators and scales and dynos at Touring you want but PLEASE dont screw up Prepared.

[n1gzd]

While it could be argued that the proposed system is not perfect keep in mind that we are comparing it to the current system which in my opinion is a lot more problematic. Our choice is to choose the system that works the best not to decide if the new system is perfect.
Rebecca

[boltonite]

Jimmy is correct, substantially more people in Prepared are satisfied with the current rules than dissatisfied (18 to 10). The Prepared class folks appear less disenchanted than those in Street and Showroom classes.
FF

[dradernh]

I'm pretty sure I came down in favor of the new rules, if only because it will get me away from cars with dramatically more power. Classing by P2W just makes sense to me. Still, in Super B I would have quite a bit less power than a car built somewhere near the class limit; for example, at a corrected P2W of 8.5:1, I could take my 284 HP / 216 TQ up to 370 HP / 370 TQ & not have to move out of Super B. At the same time, my car will never be competitive on a chassis-to-chassis basis with something like a modern P-car.

[WillM]

I agree with Brendan, Jimmy, Les, and the gang in their camp.

I think Touring has great potential for those currently running in SS and ST, and though there are some details that need to be worked out, the Touring proposal seems to be liked by those running in those classes.

I voted in favor of the rule change before I really dug into the 'super' classes, and discovered they were not designed as I thought they were. - Shame on me. That said, like everyone else, the survey took me by surprise - it came out waaaaaay too early.

Personally, I feel awkward 'competing' my heavily modified Hoosier-wearing Miata against daily driven or lightly modified high-horsepower / big displacement cars. It just doesn't seem right to either party involved. Though I've heard opinions from some that do like the idea, I have yet to hear it in such as way that it becomes appealing to me. 'Super' is a different ballgame and mindset from where I am now, SPC. Beyond the competition in my own class, I'm looking at trying to catch faster driver/car combinations, and the realistic ones are in 4-cylinder cars (you bastards know who you are! ).

As Jimmy, Brendan, Fred, I, and others know, the SP and P rule set has been around for a very long time, so it should not come as a surprise to anyone which cars could be competitive in these classes and the level of preparation each would need to get there. If I wanted to build an SPC overloard, I wouldn't have started with a Miata. Same with PC. I started with a Miata because I love the cars and wanted to build one as I liked it, and found a home in SP.

If someone feels like they can't be competitive in their Spec Miata under the current rules, then all they have to do is reinstall their carpet and catalytic converter and run in ST4. That said, maybe the SCCA or NASA should change their rules so that 'SCCA' and 'NASA' cars can be more competitive under COM rules, or does it not work both ways? Personally, I left ST4 when I felt that I had too much 'race' in my car compared to the typical Street Touring cars at the time, and so I moved to SPC, I had my butt handed to me for several years in SPC while I patiently developed my Miata in hopes of showing that a naturally-aspirated Miata could be a competitive car in that class. It has been a work in progress for 6 years. But I digress.

I also agree with the points Brendan and Jimmy shared about dynos and scales. There is a lot of wisdom in there, I think. I'm unconvinced that this is a place where COM wants to go. I have yet to ever read or be involved in a 'dyno' discussion that didn't melt down into a holy war, let alone one that simply ended well. I am concerned that dynos, whether required or not, and scales (to a lesser extent), will fundamentally change the culture in our paddock (which I think is pretty fricken' awesome today!). However I'm not closed to either idea.

The most balanced suggestion I've heard lately is to retain SP and P for 2013 and use next season to evaluate a change in these classes for 2014. This would allow us to focus on deciding (voting) on Touring (points-based) to replace SS and ST for 2013, and use the limited time between now and December to focus specifically on Touring.